Monker wrote:After Avengers 4, IMO, I would like to see Marvel concentrate on the cosmic universe with Captain Marvel, GotG, Adam Warlock, etc...and start building up the X-Men and Fantastic 4 franchises into the MCU...along with Spiderman....with a new huge build up to a team up against Galactus.

I take it you're not aware of the bidding war that's about to erupt between Comcast and Disney? The FF and the mutants and their rogues might not be joining the MCU if Disney's offer is rejected.

Sure I do...but I also doubt very, very much that Disney/Marvel are going to let this slip through their fingers.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:The next laugh the MCU will get out of me would be if they crash the GotG and Star Lord's ship and actually film their slow and agonizing deaths in super slow motion. I'd laugh my ass off because they are absolutely terrible and unneeded. I can't believe that stupid shit gets a pass. Gunn is beginning to work on GotG Vol.3. I hope it tanks worse than Solo and the audience laughs at them and not with them because that's what something so stupidly absurd deserves.

Sorry, just isn't going to happen that way. GotG3 will be every bit of a hit as the first two. Gunn knows what he is doing and how to write those characters. People go into it knowing what to expect. The Pac-man thing was funny...especially after watching Pixels. It doesn't really matter...GotG has an established fanbase of hundreds of thousdands of people willing to buy a ticket, and sometimes multiple tickets. So, hate on it all you want....Guardians is not "Howard the Duck".

And, BTW, the Farscape/GotG comparison was all over the internet from the day of release. Gunn has acknowledged that scifi franchises he really paid attention to were ST:TNG and Farscape. He has never denied it or exploited it....just acknowledged that is what has influenced him. I have never read many arguments of him stealing or "ripping off" Farscape.

The comparison to Starbuck/Han is also very valid. True, they are not the same as archetype as Star-lord/Crichton...but the reaction is just as lame. Fox even sued Universal over BSG ...and this was one of the claims, that Starbuck and Han were essentially the same character. Universal's defense was that these are archetype characters that have their origin in Greek and Roman myth...and Lucas/Universal could not "own" such a character and Universal/Glenn A. Larson could not "steal" it.

The same is true about Crichton/Star-lord. Ever hear of Buck Rodgers? Arthur Dent? Dorothy Gale? A character being pulled out of their own place/time and being thrown into a completely unfamiliar "universe"...and making references to the old world...is not something Farscape "owns". As Crichton even said, "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Luke, Buck, Flash or Arthur frelling Dent! I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." You can add Star-lord to that list as well....and at the time, many compared Crichton to Alice in Wonderland, too. The point is - it's an archetype character...and you can't "steal" or "rip-off" an archetype.

Monker wrote:And, BTW, the Farscape/GotG comparison was all over the internet from the day of release.

Link?If these comparisons were all over the web, then surely you can provide an example, right?GOTG was an obvious rip-off to ME from day one. Gunn acknowledged Farscape's inspiration only after the fact. Like I said, you can say "homage", I say "rip-off."

Monker wrote:He has never denied it or exploited it....just acknowledged that is what has influenced him. I have never read many arguments of him stealing or "ripping off" Farscape.

Don't care what you read. You are pretty uninformed on most subjects.

Monker wrote:The comparison to Starbuck/Han is also very valid. True, they are not the same as archetype as Star-lord/Crichton...but the reaction is just as lame. Fox even sued Universal over BSG ...and this was one of the claims, that Starbuck and Han were essentially the same character. Universal's defense was that these are archetype characters that have their origin in Greek and Roman myth...and Lucas/Universal could not "own" such a character and Universal/Glenn A. Larson could not "steal" it.

The Han Solo space cowboy archetype is soo broad that, of course, no company could lay claim to it.

Monker wrote:The same is true about Crichton/Star-lord. Ever hear of Buck Rodgers? Arthur Dent? Dorothy Gale? A character being pulled out of their own place/time and being thrown into a completely unfamiliar "universe"...and making references to the old world...is not something Farscape "owns". As Crichton even said, "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Luke, Buck, Flash or Arthur frelling Dent! I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." You can add Star-lord to that list as well....and at the time, many compared Crichton to Alice in Wonderland, too. The point is - it's an archetype character...and you can't "steal" or "rip-off" an archetype.

The "stranger in a strange land/fish out of water" archetype is not new. However, none of those characters spoke in a non-stop stream of pop cultural references. Gunn made Starlord into Crichton. That characterization of Starlord is not in the source comic material. There were other examples in the movie I noticed before I flushed it out of my mind. Really a cynical unfunny derivative piece of shit movie.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

YoungJRNYfan wrote:The next laugh the MCU will get out of me would be if they crash the GotG and Star Lord's ship and actually film their slow and agonizing deaths in super slow motion. I'd laugh my ass off because they are absolutely terrible and unneeded. I can't believe that stupid shit gets a pass. Gunn is beginning to work on GotG Vol.3. I hope it tanks worse than Solo and the audience laughs at them and not with them because that's what something so stupidly absurd deserves.

Sorry, just isn't going to happen that way. GotG3 will be every bit of a hit as the first two. Gunn knows what he is doing and how to write those characters. People go into it knowing what to expect. The Pac-man thing was funny...especially after watching Pixels. It doesn't really matter...GotG has an established fanbase of hundreds of thousdands of people willing to buy a ticket, and sometimes multiple tickets. So, hate on it all you want....Guardians is not "Howard the Duck".

And, BTW, the Farscape/GotG comparison was all over the internet from the day of release. Gunn has acknowledged that scifi franchises he really paid attention to were ST:TNG and Farscape. He has never denied it or exploited it....just acknowledged that is what has influenced him. I have never read many arguments of him stealing or "ripping off" Farscape.

The comparison to Starbuck/Han is also very valid. True, they are not the same as archetype as Star-lord/Crichton...but the reaction is just as lame. Fox even sued Universal over BSG ...and this was one of the claims, that Starbuck and Han were essentially the same character. Universal's defense was that these are archetype characters that have their origin in Greek and Roman myth...and Lucas/Universal could not "own" such a character and Universal/Glenn A. Larson could not "steal" it.

The same is true about Crichton/Star-lord. Ever hear of Buck Rodgers? Arthur Dent? Dorothy Gale? A character being pulled out of their own place/time and being thrown into a completely unfamiliar "universe"...and making references to the old world...is not something Farscape "owns". As Crichton even said, "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Luke, Buck, Flash or Arthur frelling Dent! I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." You can add Star-lord to that list as well....and at the time, many compared Crichton to Alice in Wonderland, too. The point is - it's an archetype character...and you can't "steal" or "rip-off" an archetype.

The bottom line is as I said, hundreds of thousands of people disagree with you and buy tickets anyway. The exact opposite of what you posted is probably what will happen, at least 5 GotG movies compared to your ONE BvS.

You are just pissed that it is yet another successful Marvel franchise and has successfully kicked off the Marvel cosmic universe. It happened, it continues to happen - and your "dopey" rants will never change it.

It's great that I hit a nerve and all but seriously, no matter how many families with droves of 9 year olds that make up the GoTG audience on discount Tuesday won't change the fact that their characters are...

..hot garbage. Watching them buffoon around in IW was an embarrassment and embarrassed many of my MCU buddies. Hot garbage. Sorry.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:It's great that I hit a nerve and all but seriously, no matter how many families with droves of 9 year olds that make up the GoTG audience on discount Tuesday won't change the fact that their characters are...

..hot garbage. Watching them buffoon around in IW was an embarrassment and embarrassed many of my MCU buddies. Hot garbage. Sorry.

The Guardians' antics — mainly Star-Lord, Drax and Mantis — was cringetacular. Notice how much cooler Rocket [Raccoon] and NuGroot got when they bailed out with Thor on their voyage to Nidavellir.

Monker wrote:Sorry, just isn't going to happen that way. GotG3 will be every bit of a hit as the first two. Gunn knows what he is doing and how to write those characters.

Gunn's just writing characters based on what he likes. The Guardians are essentially shadows of their initial incarnations; Rocket [Raccoon]'s the closest. Gunn wrote a script, and they (Feige) approved it. They're not going to change it now since general audiences don't know better, and ironically the comics "fans" who bitch about Goyer's and Snyder's take on Superman aren't bitching, either, which is a clear demonstration of bias.

Monker wrote:The same is true about Crichton/Star-lord. Ever hear of Buck Rodgers? Arthur Dent? Dorothy Gale? A character being pulled out of their own place/time and being thrown into a completely unfamiliar "universe"...and making references to the old world...is not something Farscape "owns". As Crichton even said, "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Luke, Buck, Flash or Arthur frelling Dent! I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." You can add Star-lord to that list as well....and at the time, many compared Crichton to Alice in Wonderland, too. The point is - it's an archetype character...and you can't "steal" or "rip-off" an archetype.

"Fish-out-of-water" is an archetype. Star-Lord's referencing turd blossoms, and dubstep (which didn't exist for more than a decade after his initial abduction from Earth), isn't.

verslibre wrote:Infinity War is still in the top five, and its current worldwide gross is $2,001,136,398.

Bravo! Contrary to what RWFart thinks how I feel about Marvel, IW was outstanding (outside of the GoTG and maybe Hulk) where I've said plenty of times how well of an oiled machine they truly are. He's just too busy knocking DC, films he watches on his Kindle Fire, to realize it.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Bravo! Contrary to what RWFart thinks how I feel about Marvel, IW was outstanding (outside of the GoTG and maybe Hulk) where I've said plenty of times how well of an oiled machine they truly are. He's just too busy knocking DC, films he watches on his Kindle Fire, to realize it.

Iron Man was fantastic and still one of the best.The Incredible Hulk was poop.Iron Man 2 was shit.Iron Man 3 was total shit.TFA was okay; boring.Thor was mediocre.Thor:TDW was aids.Winter Soldier could fit into the DCU. One of the best.GoTG was forgotten entertainment.Age of Ultron was a mess.Homecoming..I don't remember anything here.IW was fantastic and large in scale. Good build and payoff.

Didn't see the rest since films like Dr.Strange and Ant-Man are the same movie being made over and over with different characters. They're only there to be crammed into the next Avengers film. Though, I still want to see BP for sure.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Didn't see the rest since films like Dr.Strange and Ant-Man are the same movie being made over and over with different characters. They're only there to be crammed into the next Avengers film. Though, I still want to see BP for sure.

Doctor Strange could have been so much more. Bad villain, too. It was more disappointing because Derrickson's a director I like.

Ant-Man's a popcorn movie you can throw on while you play Scrabble with your dachshund.

Unabridged online review (the one in the magazine is edited for space). Looks like the curse of Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 has struck again.

Ant-Man and the Wasp is a forgettable Marvel caper: EW review

After I saw Ant-Man and the Wasp, I tried to remember if I saw Ant-Man and the Wasp. This is one of those Marvel products peddling self-aware detachment as a defining narrative strategy. Scientists will say science stuff — “quantum realm,” “quantum entanglement,” “quantum tunnel” — and then Scott/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) will deadpan that everyone says “quantum” too much. Characters joke so much about Captain America: Civil War that you start to wonder if you paid movie-ticket prices to read the internet two years ago. It feels less like a feature film than a meme somebody made about an Ant-Man trailer.

It’s forgettable, but some things are better forgotten. Like 2015’s Ant-Man, this sequel opens with a digital-botox prologue, de-rezzing a couple fine performers into the uncanny valley. Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer were two of the most exciting actors of the 1980s, the era of Wall Street and The Fabulous Baker Boys. “But what if Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer were totally boring in the 1980s?” is the note this movie decides to start on. Married superheroes Hank Pym (Douglas) and Janet Van Dyne (Pfeiffer) leave their daughter behind for a fateful super-mission. Pfeiffer mostly disappears after that. Janet was tragic backstory in Ant-Man. Now she’s the plot point of the sequel, The Thing To Pursue. Perhaps in another sequel she’ll get to be a character.

In present-day San Francisco, Avenger-adjacent Scott is under house arrest because something something Sokovia Accords. But he dodges the law to help Hope (Evangeline Lilly) — daughter of Hank and Janet, now reborn as the next-generation Wasp — to rescue Janet. From there, Ant-Man and the Wasp almost feels like an old-fashioned caper. Walton Goggins plays a gleeful criminal sharpie, and Michael Peña’s Luis remains a fast-talking delight. Those two have one big scene together that’s as good as anything Marvel’s ever done.

Notably, that scene involves no Ant-Men and even fewer Wasps. Rudd’s a charmer, and Lilly looks happy to finally have something to do. But the story is too busy, and too removed, to let them have any noticeable chemistry. The details of their dynamic are vague, almost obtuse. We know they made out at the end of Ant-Man. This sequel is set a few years later, and Lilly recalls a time when they were something like a couple. “We were working together, training together,” she says, “And, you know, other-stuff-ing together.” Pure PG-13 poetry: other stuff-ing.

But Hope and Scott barely seem to be in the same movie. They’re two flavors of heroic blandness. She’s resolute, laser-focused on rescuing her mom. He’s a snarkbot, perpetually unprepared until he knows exactly what to do to save the day. The storytelling algorithm coughs up the token moment of prefab emotion (one scene where Scott has a tender conversation with his daughter) and its token moment of cheerful objectification (must Ant-Man be ripped, too?)

The script has five credited screenwriters, including Rudd. You get the feeling one of them wrote the plot on the back of the napkin, and the other four got hired to make fun of the first guy. Not a bad instinct. Part of what made Thor: Ragnarok so great was the sense that you were watching a great defacement of the whole Thor idea. But Ragnarok had a whimsical sense of humor sprinkled atop a decadent retro-junk style. Ant-Man and the Wasp stumbles by trying to take itself even half-seriously. Poor Hannah-John Kamen looks stranded as the notional super-baddie, the space-phasing Ghost. Sad flashbacks, bad attitude, lame powers: She’s the most boring villain since that time Thor punched some elves.

Director Peyton Reed is a steady comedy director. He tries his best to inject the action scenes with size-swapping intrigue, but you’ve seen these manic punchfests before. The film has a bland look — gray labs, glorby quantum blobs left over from Doctor Strange. And the Wasp has a cool set of “stingers” that fire energy bullet things at people. That feels like a cheat, somehow. If you have energy bullet things, why do you need to fight the bad guys in a heavily-choreographed body-shifting twirlfight? Just shoot them with the energy bullets. I know, I know, the comics.

Anyhow, there’s one droll visual: Dr. Pym has a gigantic laboratory, a huge multi-level warehouse space — which he shrinks down to carry-on size and pulls as a suitcase. (Make your own joke here about Bay Area real estate.) The occasional lightness of Ant-Man and the Wasp feels unique to this sub-franchise. Very little is really at stake here, beyond the freaky possibility that Paul Rudd will play Michelle Pfeiffer more than Michelle Pfeiffer does. (It’s a quantum entanglement thing.) But the forced whimsy is a pose, a defensive posture, a way to excuse all the clockwork plot mechanics and halfhearted characterizations.

And the costumes, yeesh. The superpowered people wear outfits that look like expensive athleisure. Which makes sense. Ant-Man and the Wasp is working too hard to look unconvincingly relaxed. C+

The Ant-Man and The Wasp reviews are the biggest joke not even Marvel writers could come up with. I like the MAJOR shade at Infinity War just to come up with some review because Ant-Man and The Wasp doesn't even seem like a movie rather than a stand-up comedy special. It's the perfect example of reviewers coming up with something to write because they blatantly have to.

Check out the comments below the review. The Marvel fanboys are throwing hissy fits. They attack everything from his overall taste in films, his other reviews, and his writing style. Just because he gave an honest review. I guess a C+ rating for a Marvel movie is unheard or something.

verslibre wrote:Unabridged online review (the one in the magazine is edited for space). Looks like the curse of Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 has struck again.

Ant-Man and the Wasp is a forgettable Marvel caper: EW review

After I saw Ant-Man and the Wasp, I tried to remember if I saw Ant-Man and the Wasp. This is one of those Marvel products peddling self-aware detachment as a defining narrative strategy. Scientists will say science stuff — “quantum realm,” “quantum entanglement,” “quantum tunnel” — and then Scott/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) will deadpan that everyone says “quantum” too much. Characters joke so much about Captain America: Civil War that you start to wonder if you paid movie-ticket prices to read the internet two years ago. It feels less like a feature film than a meme somebody made about an Ant-Man trailer.

It’s forgettable, but some things are better forgotten. Like 2015’s Ant-Man, this sequel opens with a digital-botox prologue, de-rezzing a couple fine performers into the uncanny valley. Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer were two of the most exciting actors of the 1980s, the era of Wall Street and The Fabulous Baker Boys. “But what if Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer were totally boring in the 1980s?” is the note this movie decides to start on. Married superheroes Hank Pym (Douglas) and Janet Van Dyne (Pfeiffer) leave their daughter behind for a fateful super-mission. Pfeiffer mostly disappears after that. Janet was tragic backstory in Ant-Man. Now she’s the plot point of the sequel, The Thing To Pursue. Perhaps in another sequel she’ll get to be a character.

In present-day San Francisco, Avenger-adjacent Scott is under house arrest because something something Sokovia Accords. But he dodges the law to help Hope (Evangeline Lilly) — daughter of Hank and Janet, now reborn as the next-generation Wasp — to rescue Janet. From there, Ant-Man and the Wasp almost feels like an old-fashioned caper. Walton Goggins plays a gleeful criminal sharpie, and Michael Peña’s Luis remains a fast-talking delight. Those two have one big scene together that’s as good as anything Marvel’s ever done.

Notably, that scene involves no Ant-Men and even fewer Wasps. Rudd’s a charmer, and Lilly looks happy to finally have something to do. But the story is too busy, and too removed, to let them have any noticeable chemistry. The details of their dynamic are vague, almost obtuse. We know they made out at the end of Ant-Man. This sequel is set a few years later, and Lilly recalls a time when they were something like a couple. “We were working together, training together,” she says, “And, you know, other-stuff-ing together.” Pure PG-13 poetry: other stuff-ing.

But Hope and Scott barely seem to be in the same movie. They’re two flavors of heroic blandness. She’s resolute, laser-focused on rescuing her mom. He’s a snarkbot, perpetually unprepared until he knows exactly what to do to save the day. The storytelling algorithm coughs up the token moment of prefab emotion (one scene where Scott has a tender conversation with his daughter) and its token moment of cheerful objectification (must Ant-Man be ripped, too?)

The script has five credited screenwriters, including Rudd. You get the feeling one of them wrote the plot on the back of the napkin, and the other four got hired to make fun of the first guy. Not a bad instinct. Part of what made Thor: Ragnarok so great was the sense that you were watching a great defacement of the whole Thor idea. But Ragnarok had a whimsical sense of humor sprinkled atop a decadent retro-junk style. Ant-Man and the Wasp stumbles by trying to take itself even half-seriously. Poor Hannah-John Kamen looks stranded as the notional super-baddie, the space-phasing Ghost. Sad flashbacks, bad attitude, lame powers: She’s the most boring villain since that time Thor punched some elves.

Director Peyton Reed is a steady comedy director. He tries his best to inject the action scenes with size-swapping intrigue, but you’ve seen these manic punchfests before. The film has a bland look — gray labs, glorby quantum blobs left over from Doctor Strange. And the Wasp has a cool set of “stingers” that fire energy bullet things at people. That feels like a cheat, somehow. If you have energy bullet things, why do you need to fight the bad guys in a heavily-choreographed body-shifting twirlfight? Just shoot them with the energy bullets. I know, I know, the comics.

Anyhow, there’s one droll visual: Dr. Pym has a gigantic laboratory, a huge multi-level warehouse space — which he shrinks down to carry-on size and pulls as a suitcase. (Make your own joke here about Bay Area real estate.) The occasional lightness of Ant-Man and the Wasp feels unique to this sub-franchise. Very little is really at stake here, beyond the freaky possibility that Paul Rudd will play Michelle Pfeiffer more than Michelle Pfeiffer does. (It’s a quantum entanglement thing.) But the forced whimsy is a pose, a defensive posture, a way to excuse all the clockwork plot mechanics and halfhearted characterizations.

And the costumes, yeesh. The superpowered people wear outfits that look like expensive athleisure. Which makes sense. Ant-Man and the Wasp is working too hard to look unconvincingly relaxed. C+

Saw Ant Man and Wasp Saturday. Fun action movie. Instigated lots of talk between myself, the wife and my son on how the ending could affect IW2. Not forgettable at all I'm afraid.

Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama

62% 2nd weekend drop is not good. Not as shitty as 2nd weekend drops as MOS (64.6%) or BvS (69.1%). But that's definitely not company Marvel wants to keep.

Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama